ow Integers Should Work

[Don]

On 08.12.2011 05:46, bcs wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 11:50 PM, Don wrote:
>>
>> He's talking about system languages. A system language has to have a
>> close relationship to the architecture.
>>
>> By contrast, if you don't care about performance, it's easy -- just use
>> BigInts for everything. Problem solved.
>>
>> Looks like I have to put it more bluntly: I don't think he knows what
>> he's talking about. (On this particular topic).
>
> I know exactly what you have been saying I just think you are wrong, not
> because I don't think you knows what you are talking about but because I
> think you are evaluating his conclusion based on a different criteria
> than he is.

HE PROPOSES CHANGING INSTRUCTION SETS.

> More specifically, I think we are dealing with a differing order of
> priories for system languages. Mine would put safety (i.e. NO undefined
> behaviour) over performance. I think he is going the same way.
> Personally, if I could only have one, I think I'd (first) go with
> defining overflow semantics rather than trapping but I'm not sure which
> is more useful in a systems context.
>
> Can we at least agree that if you are only going to have one signed
> integer semantic, that undefined overflow is the worst possible choice?

Yes, but D doesn't have undefined overflow. So it's irrelevant.